Immediate result of I-696 would be larger salmon runs

As a former mayor of Seattle and a concerned citizen of the Northwest, I have a strong interest in seeing that our state's salmon heritage is preserved. The mantra of those opposed to Initiative 696 is that we must continue to work together in order to solve Washington's salmon crisis. The fact is, we have been trying to work together with the commercial fishermen and various government agencies for years and it has gotten us nowhere.

As a result of this failed process, many of us have come to believe that the powerful commercial fishing lobby and the government agencies in charge of salmon management are two of the biggest obstacles blocking the way toward salmon recovery.

It's time for the voters of Washington to stand up and take a strong positive step toward a permanent salmon recovery, and all of the substantial economic benefits that will come along with it.

My support of I-696 is based on much more than my desire to see salmon return in their proper numbers to the state. Yes on 696 is the most effective method for counteracting the negative effect that Endangered Species Act listings will have on our state's economy.

The many restrictions that accompany ESA listings will likely necessitate substantial tax increases. They will raise the cost of water and energy, as well as the prices we pay for everyday household items. The Building Industry of Washington has said the ESA listings will have a devastating impact on housing affordability in Washington.

In addition to all of this, commercial net fishing is one of the most subsidized industries in Washington. They receive substantial benefits from the Port of Seattle and the state of Washington. Why should you and I as taxpayers be footing the bill to keep commercial netters in business when their destructive practices will cost us billions of dollars on ESA restrictions?

I-696, if passed, would most certainly result in larger salmon runs immediately. Common sense tells us that by allowing more salmon to move upriver and spawn, salmon populations will increase. Put another way, salmon dead in a net can't spawn. The increased fish returns seen in the fourteen states that already have net bans prove their effectiveness. In California for instance, voters enacted a net ban in 1990. In 1992, the Sacramento River recorded its lowest Chinook salmon returns ever. In 1997, just five years later, the return on the Sacramento had increased 300 percent, and the river received more salmon than all of Oregon, Washington and Idaho combined.

Opponents of Yes on 696 argue that the initiative is flawed because it doesn't address habitat recovery. Don't be confused by the commercial fishing lobby. Habitat recovery and banning commercial net fishing are two entirely separate issues. Habitat recovery, which we support, is a long-term process. Banning commercial nets, however, will result in an immediate boost in salmon returns, and is an essential element of any overall strategy to save salmon.

Much has been made of the fact that while the Audubon Society and other environmental groups support I-696, the Sierra Club and some other groups oppose it. Many people wonder why any environmental group would oppose an initiative whose sole purpose is to replenish salmon populations.

First of all, these groups have invested all of their credibility and all of their funding into the "habitat issue." If salmon were to increase 300 percent under a net ban, as they did in California, these groups would lose their issue. Second, I would point out that the Sierra Club has supported net bans in other states, including Florida where the commercial fishing industry may not be quite as powerful.

Not only will I-696 increase salmon populations and ease the effects of costly ESA restrictions, it will also bolster tourism and related industries in an unprecedented way.

Before salmon were severely over-harvested by destructive nets, Washington supported a thriving charter fishing industry. Although most commercial fishermen in Washington already have other fulltime jobs, those who don't could likely find new and perhaps more rewarding work in this industry once the fish return.

As it stands now, recreational fishing generates three to four times more revenue within Washington than commercial net fishing. There is tremendous potential for growth in this industry. Currently the number of licensed sport fishermen in Washington is about half of what it was before our salmon crisis.

Please join me in voting yes on I-696 for our salmon and for our economy.

For more information, call 425-235-3810 or visit www.yes696.org